Shange and Another v Cellier NO and Others (JR994/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 531 (4 November 2016)

Shange and Another v Cellier NO and Others (JR994/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 531 (4 November 2016)

The court found that the application for rescission was filed 393 days late and that the explanation for the delay was vague, unsubstantiated, and limited to a single sentence regarding the applicants' return home and lack of funds. The court held that limited access to funds is not, in itself, a sufficient explanation for delay, and that a full explanation for every period of the delay is required but was not provided. The first respondent applied the correct test and her decision was not unreasonable. The application for review was dismissed as the applicants failed to make out a proper case for condonation.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 531
Parties
Applicant: Mzophilayao Jafta Shange & 1 Other; Respondent: L Cellier N.O; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Clover City Deep (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2016
Case Number
JR994/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Rescission of Award, Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Rescission of Award Late Filing Review of Arbitration Ruling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzophilayao Jafta Shange & 1 Other

Applicant

L Cellier N.O

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Clover City Deep (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's refusal to condone the late filing of the rescission application was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay was sufficient to justify condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's decision was so unreasonable that it warranted judicial interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for rescission was filed 393 days late and that the explanation for the delay was vague, unsubstantiated, and limited to a single sentence regarding the applicants' return home and lack of funds. The court held that limited access to funds is not, in itself, a sufficient explanation for delay, and that a full explanation for every period of the delay is required but was not provided. The first respondent applied the correct test and her decision was not unreasonable. The application for review was dismissed as the applicants failed to make out a proper case for condonation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.